Are the folk in Gitmo guilty or innocent?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
Everyone in this board is guilty of something.

So whom should be send to Gitmo?

You answered your own question:

Originally posted by GePap
Everyone

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why should they be released asap? Being a soldier of the Taliban means you're a POW and liable to be held for the duration of the conflict.

Because Bush clearly stated that the prisoners at Gitmo are not POWs
(which he did as, being POWs, they would have been treated according to the geneva conventions)

[Sikander]

Who cares about guilt or innocence? They aren't being held because we know they committed crimes, they are being held because we are in a war with them and their ilk. We must either hold them until such time as their war with us is over or they pose no threat. The alternative is execution for the lot.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Sikander
Who cares about guilt or innocence? They aren't being held because we know they committed crimes, they are being held because we are in a war with them and their ilk. We must either hold them until such time as their war with us is over or they pose no threat. The alternative is execution for the lot.

See posting above.

Being held captive just because you are at war and the person took part in the war fighting against you gives the person a POW-Status and he/she has to be treated according to the geneva conventions.

And there is no doubt that the treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo is definitely not in accordance with the Geneva conventions (for example the state holding the prisoners captive must ensure that the housing of the prisoners is not worse than the housing for its own soldiers; I never heard of american soldiers being housed in cages in the open, constantly wearing shackles )

[Drake Tungsten]

Being held captive just because you are at war and the person took part in the war fighting against you gives the person a POW-Status and he/she has to be treated according to the geneva conventions.

No, it doesn't...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No, it doesn't...

While I think that the war against the Taliban is a clear-cut case of a war in which the POW ought to be treated under the entire Geneva convention, I can understand that the likes of you consider "unlawful combatants" not to fall under it.

The Geneva convention has expected situations like that, and the following caveat is present at the beginning of the text:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

[Kuciwalker]

with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

[Imran Siddiqui]

including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat [literally: out of the fight] by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

Prsioners have generally laid down their arms, you know. And they're hors de combat because of detention.

It's not like the guys in Gitmo are happily kalashnikoving their wardens as we speak.

[BeBMan]

IMO the main question is not if you can make the case for them being unlawful combattants that don't deserve treatment under the Geneva convention - you probably can do that. If that is however a wise move is another thing.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BeBro
If that is however a wise move is another thing.

Thay're TERRISTS!

Of course keeping them in eternal custody, without any monitoring from the press or humanitarian organizations is a wise move. Them terrists had it coming

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro
If that is however a wise move is another thing.

Well we might actually want to, you know, interrogate them. I know it is a shocking concept but it is there on the table.

[BeBMan]

Thay're TERRISTS!

Of course keeping them in eternal custody, without any monitoring from the press or humanitarian organizations is a wise move. Them terrists had it coming

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well we might actually want to, you know, interrogate them. I know it is a shocking concept but it is there on the table.

And you can't interrogate people in other conditions? What do you do with all those criminals etc.....

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well we might actually want to, you know, interrogate them. I know it is a shocking concept but it is there on the table.

And you need five years to do that?
You need to use a prison that is out of your territory to do that?
You need to prevent humanitarian organizations from seeing the treatment of prisoners to do that?

I can understand that you outsource torture to some third-world country that wants to be on your good side. I can understand that you want to keep dangerous prisoners in a high-security prison. But I fail to see any use to using Gitmo to do that, especially now that it has become a symbol of America spitting on human values.